The desire to be safe and secure—as to oneself, one's family and friends, and one's property—is fundamental. As technology has improved over the years—such as with the creation of digital communications, cellular and other wireless networks, broadband and the Internet, more capable and less expensive computing equipment, and the development of additional event detection devices, with the ability to detect a wider arrange of event types,—so has the ability to protect one's home or property. It is common for businesses and homeowners to have an electronic system for detecting alarm event conditions (such as intrusion, fire, carbon monoxide, flooding, temperature conditions, appliance status, etc.) at their premises, which reports the event to a server or other system that notifies the user who can monitor the systems through their phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), etc., and/or remotely interact and control systems at their premises (such as lighting, thermostats, energy management devices, security systems, etc.). Typically, these systems may also provide alarm event information to a monitoring center that can contact first responders or take other action on the user's behalf.
These electronic alarm monitoring systems provide key advantages of detecting events prior to an occupant's detection of the event or in the occupant's absence, and they can function without the need for human supervision, interaction, or operation—detecting events and communicating the event data to a monitoring center, which is staffed with highly trained operators who can request a dispatch of first responders (such as paramedics, firefighters, and law enforcement officers) or take other action on behalf of the system owner in response to the alarm event.
However, transmitted alarm events sometimes occur due to user error, or are due to circumstances that do not necessitate a dispatch of first responders, i.e., a “false alarm”. When such events occur, they risk an unnecessary burden on first responders, and may increase the cost of the alarm monitoring system to the home owner by generating fines or the use of additional hardware to help verify that the event is actually an alarm event.
It is known in the art that video verification methods can be used as a secondary indicator of whether an event has occurred for which first responders are needed. With video verification, an operator in the monitoring center can view pictures, video clips, or streaming video from the premises to better assess whether the alarm event is accompanied by suspicious visual indicators. These indicators may include signs of forced entry, damage to the premises, injury to an occupant of the premises, or visual evidence of unexpected people or vehicles at the premises.
However, video verification may also not show any clearly suspicious activity or just show what the occupant of the premises was doing at the time of the response. In such cases, follow up contact with the system owner or a designated contact may still be needed as a tertiary verification of whether there is a need for first responders. Although these methods may increase the reliability of alarm event indicators, they can be disadvantageous due to privacy implications, potential for added response time to actual alarm events, increased cost associated with human resources, and other concerns.